If my hon. friend is not satisfied now I will never try to satisfy him, because it is useless to try to persuade any one who will not be persuaded. As to my hon. friend's remarks that the Civil Service Commision were told to do this-
I did not say that; I will tell my hon. friend what I did say. I said that they had done it because this name had been handed to them. What I am finding fault with is that they handed the name of an outsider and not . the name of some official in the department. I am not saying tnat the commission did this because they were told to do it, but because this was the only name put forward to
them. I do not know what the Civil Service Commission did. I do not know what investigation they made, because unfortunately the report does not contain that information.
They practically certify that he was a man in good health and fit physically to occupy the position. I did not hear much more, so my hon. friend is arguing entirely from wrong premises. I cannot understand why it was necessary to violate all the principles of the Act, in order to get in a man who, my hon. friend admits, did not know anything about the department, who had to take a year to be educated about the department. This is the man whose name was sent to the Civil Service Commission when there were plenty of good men in the department who did know the duties intimately, who had been educated for years, who would not have had to go to school for a year at a cost of $3,300, but who possessed all the necessary information, who could have been promoted to occupy the position-and then this affair never would have happened.
The whole difficulty is this, if I understand my hon. friend, that the appointment has been made of a certain gentleman who should have been suggested to the Civil Service Commission, whereas a promotion should have been made from the employees. Surely my hon. friend will admit that the head of the department has got certain rights in that respect, and that he certainly has the right to submit to the Civil Service Commission the name of a gentleman to be appointed as sub-head of his department. That surely goes without saying. The appointment has been made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission; it has been regularly made.
friend knows that under the Civil Service Act he has a right to appoint a deputy minister. They did not appoint a deputy minister, they proceeded in an irregular man-91}
ner, without jurisdiction, and appointed a man, not deputy minister, but simply to draw $3,300 and be educated in order that he could be made deputy minister. That is what we find fault with. I know what the law is; I know my hon. friend could have appointed a man deputy minister, but the man was not fit to be appointed deputy minister and therefore they had to break and violate the law, and appoint him without a proper certificate. My hon. friend admits that they have no jurisdiction and he says: Well, what are we going to do
about it? I say, do nothing, follow the law, and you will not get into these scrapes.
If the deputy head reports that the knowledge and ability requisite for the position are wholly or in part professional, technical or otherwise peculiar, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the head of the department, based on the report in writing of the deputy head, may appoint a person to the position without competitive examination .. . provided the said person obtains from the commission a certificate, to be given with or without examination, as is determined by the regulations of the commission.
The first thing was to get a report from the deputy minister or the acting deputy minister. There is a reference to the report of the acting deputy minister in the report of the Civil Service Commission. There was a person acting in the place of a deputy head and if he had made a recommendation, the Governor in Council would have passed upon it. It appears to me that none of these conditions were complied with. The Postmaster General admits that there was no Teport from the deputy minister or deputy head of the department, and all he has read is a certificate from the Civil Service Commission that this person had all the necessary qualifications; but they only said so as an echo of the report given to them by the acting deputy head of the department. This deputy head should have reported that he had the ability requisite for the position and that it was wholly or in part professional, technical or otherwise peculiar. There is no such report as that and that is the only report upon which the Civil Service Commission could intelligently act. I repeat that not one of the requirements necessary under section 21 has been complied with and there is the further fact that the Civil Service law was set in defiance by reason of the
applicant for the position not being obliged to undergo an examination. I think this is an extremely serious matter, and the explanation of the Postmaster General has not put it in any better light than it was in before he- contributed to the debate.
I think I could name one, but I will bring them before the committee when my Estimates are up. There are in my department men, deserving men, not appointed by me, who were in the department when I assumed office, and whom I am told are deserving and ought to be kept in the department, men who every one, my deputy minister, and all the important officia's in the department, think should be promoted, and then Mr. Shortt says, no.